“The official added, however, that Barr has been and will remain recused from overseeing the department’s review into how federal prosecutors in Florida, including now-Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, previously reached a plea deal with Epstein that has since come under scrutiny as being too lenient.”
Again, Trump has “hired someone” who has skeletons in his closet. I just wonder who vets these people? Trump’s appointees have been, in the main, a passel of $hit, e.g. Sessions, Tillerson, McMaster, Rancid Penis, Tom Price, Chris Wray, the A$$hole who is now running the FED, the list is pretty much endless! I’m even worried about Gorsuch, he’s beginning to look like another Roberts!
Skeletons? Don’t think so. Recusing yourself where there is a obvious reason to do so is the lawful thing to do.
It’s beginning to look like there’s no one in DC that doesn’t have skeletons in their closet and unfortunately, there’s no way Trump could have appointed a bunch of unknowns with zero experience, regardless of whether or not they might have actually been able to do a better job.
You're probably right and we'll know for sure if he begins wearing a demented grin.
Barr's conflict of interest is with the perceived bias towards protecting of the reputation of the firm that was hired by Epstein, not due to any association with Epstein directly.
-PJ
You really don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
1. Barr is NOT recusing. Did you even read? The only thing he’s distancing himself from is the years old plea deal because he was associated with the law firm that handled that plea deal. This is professional ethics 101.
2. Gorsuch is conservative, period. Only brain dead imbeciles would think otherwise, and only because they read the headlines and let the media tell them how to think. While it is true that “Gorsuch sides with ‘liberal justices’ in 4 cases, in each of those cases it was to limit the power of government. One was in an Indian treaty on hunting rights, the others were in criminal justice cases where Gorsuch, LIKE SCALIA, takes a dim view of vague laws.
It’s pretty clear that you have zero legal training, and probably can’t understand the difference between an outcome and the reasoning that gets to that outcome.
Read Gorsuch’s opinions in Hammond and Davis. He cites to original intent, Natural Law, the Constitution and Blackstone. Liberal justices don’t do that. Just because he reached the same result, doesn’t mean he thinks like they do.
The liberals sided with the criminal because they are pro-criminal. Gorsuch doesn’t want the government taking people’s liberty and writing vague laws to do so. Scalia thought exactly the same thing.
In criminal justice cases, Gorsuch is going to be more cautious when it comes to government power, and that’s a good thing.
Gorsuch sided with THOMAS more than any other justice and it’s clear that he aligns most closely with him.
I’d take 3 more Gorsuch type justices on the court in a heartbeat.
Trump didn’t hire someone with skeletons in his closet. Acosta was specifically asked about the Epstein sentencing at his confirmation hearing. There had been no new evidence discovered about Epstein. The renewed interest in the case has to do with the #MeToo movement and the Miami Herald re-reporting on the case.
From what I’ve been reading over the last few days, Acosta was told by the FBI (the Mueller FBI) that Epstein was going to be a protected informant against Bear Sterns and that’s why he was given that ridiculous sentence.
“Again, Trump has “hired someone” who has skeletons in his closet.”
A monumentally inane statement illustrating you total and complete lack of understanding of this specific situation and the recusal process in general.
The question is what percentage of all his hires have turned out bad. 25 % is probably about as good as possible. IMHO.